ITAT Delhi Judgments — October 2025

The Tribunal observed that the total additions made in the assessment orders were Rs.20,70,068/-, Rs.2,40,000/-, and Rs.2,40,000/- for the respective assessment years. It was noted that the grievance of the Revenue pertained to deletions where the tax effect was less than Rs.60 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that since the Hon'ble High Court quashed the withdrawal of approval, the basis for disallowing the deduction under Section 80IA no longer existed. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal observed that the total additions made in the assessment orders were Rs.20,70,068/-, Rs.2,40,000/-, and Rs.2,40,000/- for the respective assessment years. It was noted that the grievance of the Revenue pertained to deletions where the tax effect was less than Rs.60 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that since the Hon'ble High Court quashed the withdrawal of approval, the basis for disallowing the deduction under Section 80IA no longer existed. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that if an assessment is reopened for specific reasons, but no addition is made on those grounds, any addition made on other unrelated grounds is unsustainable in law. The reopening itself is considered bad in law.

The Tribunal held that since the Hon'ble High Court quashed the withdrawal of approval, the basis for disallowing the deduction under Section 80IA no longer existed. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal observed that the total additions made in the assessment orders were Rs.20,70,068/-, Rs.2,40,000/-, and Rs.2,40,000/- for the respective assessment years. It was noted that the grievance of the Revenue pertained to deletions where the tax effect was less than Rs.60 lakhs.

The Tribunal noted that communication gaps could not be ruled out and that there was no effective compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act. In the interest of justice, the appeal was set aside and restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication with three effective opportunities of hearing.

The Tribunal held that documents found in possession of a third party, without the assessee's name and lacking independent corroboration, cannot be solely relied upon for additions. The Tribunal also noted that a sum of Rs. 5.00 lacs treated as enhancement was returned by the assessee, and no evidence showed its re-receipt in cash.

The Tribunal held that documents found in possession of a third party, without the assessee's name and lacking independent corroboration, cannot be solely relied upon for additions. The Tribunal also noted that a sum of Rs. 5.00 lacs treated as enhancement was returned by the assessee, and no evidence showed its re-receipt in cash.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, finding no error in deleting the additions. It noted that the facts were identical to previous years where coordinate benches had decided in favor of the assessee, and the Revenue had failed to controvert the findings.

The Tribunal held that since the Hon'ble High Court quashed the withdrawal of approval, the basis for disallowing the deduction under Section 80IA no longer existed. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the approval for reopening was mechanical and lacked proper satisfaction from the prescribed authority, thus vitiating the entire reopening process. Consequently, the reopening was quashed.

The Tribunal held that the penalty notice was invalid because it did not specify the exact limb of Section 271(1)(c) under which proceedings were initiated. Consequently, the penalty order was quashed.

The Tribunal held that since the Hon'ble High Court quashed the withdrawal of approval, the basis for disallowing the deduction under Section 80IA no longer existed. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to estimate the profit element on bogus purchases at the GP rate of 1.39%, considering it a fair and reasonable estimation. The disallowance of carriage inward expenses related to these purchases was also confirmed.

The Tribunal held that since the Hon'ble High Court quashed the withdrawal of approval, the basis for disallowing the deduction under Section 80IA no longer existed. Therefore, the deduction claimed by the assessee was allowed.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s decision to quash the reassessment proceedings on the ground of an invalid notice u/s 148 was not challenged by the Revenue. Therefore, the additions made were not considered, and the appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal held that it was appropriate in the interest of justice to restore the appeal back to the CIT(A)/NFAC. The CIT(A)/NFAC was directed to decide the appeal afresh after admitting the additional evidence, subject to the appellant proving the facts at their own risk within three effective opportunities.

The Tribunal held that a lump sum disallowance of Rs. 3.5 lakhs for bogus purchases would be just and proper, not to be treated as a precedent. The penalty appeal was also allowed based on the principle that such issues do not typically result in concealment of income.

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submissions and decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO were invalid as the issue was already pending before the CIT(A). The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to Land Development Expenses, suppression of closing stock, and unaccounted/business development expenses, finding them to be unsubstantiated by the Revenue or based on cherry-picked data.

The Tribunal held that the reopening itself was not sustainable in law, citing relevant case law. Consequently, all other pleadings were rendered academic.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO were invalid as the issue was already pending before the CIT(A). The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to Land Development Expenses, suppression of closing stock, and unaccounted/business development expenses, finding them to be unsubstantiated by the Revenue or based on cherry-picked data.

The Tribunal held that CAM charges are contractual payments for maintenance services and not for the use of land or building. Therefore, they do not fall under the definition of rent under Section 194-I.

The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid due to a mechanical approval by the prescribed authority under section 151. This mechanical approval vitiated the entire reopening process.

The Tribunal restored the twin quantum appeals back to the assessing authority for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee another opportunity to plead and prove relevant facts due to communication gaps. The penalty appeal was dismissed as consequential.

The Tribunal restored the twin quantum appeals back to the assessing authority for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee another opportunity to plead and prove relevant facts due to communication gaps. The penalty appeal was dismissed as consequential.

The Tribunal restored the twin quantum appeals back to the assessing authority for a fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee another opportunity to plead and prove relevant facts due to communication gaps. The penalty appeal was dismissed as consequential.

The Tribunal noted that the plea regarding the issue being beyond the scope of Section 143(1)(a) was already settled in favour of the Department. However, regarding the alternative plea concerning the methodology of calculating the due date for deposit of employee contributions, the Tribunal found that this aspect had not been examined by the lower authorities.

The Tribunal held that Section 14A disallowance is not sustainable in the absence of exempt income, as the legislative amendment is not retrospective. It also held that the Section 68 addition is not sustainable as the assessee provided sufficient evidence of genuineness and creditworthiness, which was also accepted in the assessment order.

The Tribunal held that the cash deposits were from sales receipts, which were already declared as income and accepted by the AO. Applying Section 68 or 69 of the Act to sales receipts would lead to double taxation.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO were invalid as the issue was already pending before the CIT(A). The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to Land Development Expenses, suppression of closing stock, and unaccounted/business development expenses, finding them to be unsubstantiated by the Revenue or based on cherry-picked data.

The Tribunal upheld the findings of the lower authorities, concluding that the shares of M/s. Presha Metallurgical Ltd. were a penny stock used for accommodation entries. The assessee failed to provide sufficient evidence to rebut these findings.

The Tribunal held that the assessment was invalid because the AO who framed the assessment did not issue the mandatory section 143(2) notice. The notice was issued by a different officer.

The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of communication gaps, especially with the virtual hearing mechanism. It also noted non-compliance with Section 250(6) of the Act in the lower appellate order.

The Tribunal held that the reassessment proceedings initiated by the AO were invalid as the issue was already pending before the CIT(A). The Tribunal also upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions related to Land Development Expenses, suppression of closing stock, and unaccounted/business development expenses, finding them to be unsubstantiated by the Revenue or based on cherry-picked data.

The Tribunal noted that the quantum addition, which was the basis for the penalty, had already been deleted in a previous appeal by the assessee. Therefore, the penalty was consequential and without basis.

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte due to non-submission of documents. Considering it in the interest of justice, the Tribunal set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restored the appeal to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, allowing the assessee a reasonable opportunity to be heard and submit evidence.

The tribunal noted that the entire payment for the property was made through banking channels and that the Revenue did not dispute the source of these funds. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 16 lacs was found to be without merit and was deleted.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's various entities were paper firms managed and controlled by him for the purpose of remitting under-invoiced amounts. The assessee was found to be the owner of the monies credited in these accounts, and the sources were not explained. The addition under Section 69A was sustained.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by restricting the foreign travelling expenditure disallowance and accepting the ground on employer's contribution. The Section 14A disallowance was directed to be recomputed. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that no additions had been made in the reassessment proceedings. Consequently, the appeal was deemed not maintainable, although the assessee was granted liberty to pursue appropriate legal remedies if advised.

The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 on or after 01.04.2021 for reopening the assessment for AY 2015-16 are barred by limitation. Consequently, reassessments based on such notices are bad in law and void ab initio. The impugned reassessment order, made pursuant to a notice dated 30.07.2022, was quashed.

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's method of determining closing stock was improper. The assessee's submitted chart, which considered gross profit and direct expenses, indicated sufficient stock to support the cash sales.

The Tribunal held that the assessee's various entities were paper firms managed and controlled by him for the purpose of remitting under-invoiced amounts. The assessee was found to be the owner of the monies credited in these accounts, and the sources were not explained. The addition under Section 69A was sustained.

The Tribunal partly allowed the assessee's appeal by restricting the foreign travelling expenditure disallowance and accepting the ground on employer's contribution. The Section 14A disallowance was directed to be recomputed. The Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

The Tribunal found that while the assessee had not sufficiently proved all facts before lower authorities, treating the entire deposit as unexplained was not justified. A lump sum addition of Rs. 4,00,000 was deemed just and proper, granting relief of Rs. 28.86 lakhs.

The Tribunal held that the Revenue's appeal on both grounds was rejected. For Section 68, it was noted that a similar issue for a prior assessment year was decided in favor of the assessee. For Section 14A, the disallowance was not applicable as the assessee had not earned any exempt income, and the amendment to Section 14A was not retrospective.

The Tribunal held that the lower authorities erred in law and facts by not accepting the cash withdrawals of Rs. 8 lacs as explained. The Tribunal ordered to delete the impugned addition.